Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.

• 1960 • 364 U.S. 520 • Warren Court
In the United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving alleged fraud in a contract between private companies and the federal government for construction of a power plant. The government claimed that it had been defrauded by false statements made during negotiations, which led to an inflated price being paid for electricity generated by the plant. The defendants argued that they were immune from prosecution because their actions were part of...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1960
Docket: 26
364 U.S. 520
81 S. Ct. 294
5 L. Ed. 2d 268
1961 U.S. LEXIS 1946
Argued: Oct 19, 1960

United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving alleged fraud in a contract between private companies and the federal government for construction of a power plant. The government claimed that it had been defrauded by false statements made during negotiations, which led to an inflated price being paid for electricity generated by the plant. The defendants argued that they were immune from prosecution because their actions were part of official duties under contracts with governmental agencies. However, the court held that immunity did not extend to contractors who commit fraud against the government while performing contractual obligations. Therefore, even though these individuals acted as agents of governmental bodies when executing contracts or making purchases on behalf of those entities, they could still be held liable if they engaged in fraudulent activities detrimental to public interest.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a lawsuit against a private company, based on alleged fraud in its contract with the federal government, was an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that such matters should be left to Congress and administrative agencies who have more expertise in handling contractual disputes involving public funds. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future business transactions with the government if companies fear they could face lawsuits years after contracts are signed. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "property" under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), arguing it should not include intangible rights like those involved in this case.

Opinion written by Justice EWarren
Decided: Jan 09, 1961
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms